Work Ethic vs Pay Ethic

“The Republican Party’s top leader in Congress is catching flak for a comment that appears to call the jobless lazy – a comment that has rekindled an old challenge for the party: appearing insensitive or uncaring toward Americans who are poor or in financial difficulty.”

Goodness know that politicians can’t “appear insensitive or uncaring”. Like Bill Clinton (a multimillionaire), all politicians must “feel the pain” of the less fortunate.

“House Speaker John Boehner was asked after a speech last week to comment on a plan for addressing poverty – promoted by a Republican colleague, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

“Speaker Boehner gave a response that was favorable toward Representative Ryan’s plan, but not so favorable about Americans’ work ethic. He said in part: “I think this idea that’s been born over last … couple of years that, ‘You know, I really don’t have to work, I don’t really want to do this, I think I’d just rather sit around,’ – this is a very sick idea for our country.”

Representative Boehner was right. The unemployed are lazy and generally don’t want jobs.

But, it’s not just the unemployed who don’t want jobs—neither do most of those who have jobs.

After all, if everyone wanted jobs, why do we have to pay them? If work was so much fun, why don’t the employees pay the employers for the “privilege” of working?

Employers pay employees because virtually none of us really wants to get up, go to work, deal with a bunch of idiots and come home at night too tired to watch Dancing WithThe Stars. Very few of us really want a job.

We do, however, want the pay. Therefore, as long as the employer keeps paying, we accept the job—even if we don’t actually want that job. As long as we love the pay more than we hate the job, we go to work. That’s the real “work ethic”.

• But, being lazy and not wanting a job isn’t confined to the unemployed, the poor or even most employees—it also includes politicians like Mr. Boehner.

When Congressman Boehner starts criticizing the unemployed for being lazy, what about all the Congressmen who are elected to represent their constituents but don’t even read the legislation that they vote for or against? Isn’t reading the proposed legislation a big part of the legislators’ job? Isn’t the Congress’s failure to read the legislation it votes on, evidence of same laziness, poor “work ethic” in Congress that Representative Boehner finds so distasteful in the unemployed?

It would be interesting to know how many proposed bills Congressman Boehner has actually read during his career and how many bills he voted for or against, without reading them. If we had that information, we’d have a good indication of Representative Boehner’s personal “work ethic”.

• And finally, if the employed don’t generally want the jobs they have, and the unemployed don’t want the jobs they might be able to get, it’s also true the employers don’t generally want to pay their employees a wage that’s sufficient to support the American dream. In fact, employers hate paying their employees just as much as their employees hate going to work.

All of which suggests that if Representative Boehner would like to improve the work ethic of the unemployed, maybe he should improve the employers’ “pay ethic” .

Maybe, workers would demonstrate a better “work ethic” if employers demonstrated a better “pay ethic”. Maybe, American worker would be more interested in working if they weren’t condemned to work for 3rd world wages thanks to global free trade, reduced American tariffs, outsourcing some jobs and moving industries and high-paying industrial jobs to 3rd world countries—and leaving nothing behind for American workers but low paying jobs that no one wants but the invading hoard of illegal aliens.

The “work ethic” does not exist in a vacuum. People work hard in return for good pay. When government reduced the American corporations’ “pay ethic” by promoting “global free trade” and encouraging the invasion by illegal aliens, government also reduced the American workers’ “work ethic”.

I’m not here to advocate more welfare or raising the minimum wage. I’m not necessarily against those ideas, but they only address symptoms—they don’t promote economic solutions.

By choosing to drop our tariffs and force American workers to compete head-on with cheap foreign labor—by choosing to not enforce our borders against illegal aliens—the government (acting on behalf of multi-national corporations) absolved multi-national corporations from the obligation to pay American workers a fair wage. When the government absolved multi-national corporations from paying American workers a living wage, they also absolved many of those workers from any moral obligation to maintain a “work ethic”.

Representative Boehner played an active role in helping to reduce the corporate employers’ “pay ethic”—he has no right to complain about a consequent loss of the employees’ “work ethic”.

10 responses to “Work Ethic vs Pay Ethic”

I also contemplated the fact that pay raises do not even begin to compete with inflation. (currency in circulation or corporate greed increases of the cost of goods and services) Then I think about investments as a strategy. Lets say that I invest in a ten year T Bill @3% which today will buy me a car. Ten years later I will have $13,000 minus taxes, but now that same car will cost me $18,000 not to mention the inflation loss I incurred in saving the Original $10,000. The only real solution is to invest in goods with intrinsic value and risky short term investments with extremely high yield so that after paying the extortionist government when I actually retire I might have a penny left to give to my children when I die.

Al, the government forced employers to withhold their worker’s common right pay for labor in the form of “wages”, where the presumption is that the worker magically incurred a Federal ‘income’ tax obligation of which does not exist and has been Constitutionally misapplied (the graduated ‘tax’ falls neither within the indirect or direct classes that exist under our fundamental laws).

There is no law ever passed by Congress that makes an individuals common right to contract for labor into an ‘instant tax’. Further, the courts will ignore (and punish) the well-educated American Citizen for citing Section 861 – the Statute and corresponding regulations that define whom is liable for Domestic gross and taxable ‘income’ for individuals. Those entities would be non-resident aliens, foreign corporations, Americans doing business in foreign lands, i.e. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE AMERICAN CITIZEN and Domestic ‘income’ in these sections. Business and corporate ‘income’ is taxed on the privilege of doing business in the State, thus the Fed can tax it as well. Individuals like you and me? Not so much.

This scam has been in place since just before WWII. The corrupt courts and GovCo will NEVER admit this and therefore they simply punish the well-educated and initiated who try to fight them. I should know.

If you think your pay for labor as a common American Citizen is inherently taxable by the State and Fed just because well, it’s ‘your duty’, then you are buying into the rhetoric that has been thrust upon us all for so many years. The targets of whom the tax IS intended for (business, tariffs on foreign goods, etc.) GET HUGE TAX BREAKS and avoid their legal and lawful duty. It’s much easier to bleed the American people of their rightful property via bogus means.

The government did not force hiring entities to compel their workers to become “employees,” although I do believe the government has done nothing to correct the popular but erroneous belief that hiring entities must withhold payroll taxes, federal income taxes, and state income taxes from their workers’ pay. Read 26 CFR 31.3402(p)-1. It is supposed to be the choice of the worker as to whether he will work as a non-statutory worker or as a statutory “employee.” The hiring entity also has the choice whether or not to become the worker’s “employer.” If you can, locate some of the earlier versions of that section. I helped a man terminate his “voluntary withholding agreement” in June of 2013, and a few months later some of the wording of that section was changed to mask what formerly had been more clearly conveyed.

Moreover, if there is an “employer/employee” relationship, that section of the treasury regs sets forth the protocol for terminating that status and returning to private sector labor. A hiring entity conveys this change of status to the IRS by checking a box on the back side of Form 94. The former “employer” simply checks the box that states that it no longer has “employees,” and enters the date it ceased to have “employees.” This also terminates all state payroll tax withholding, as the states are simply riding piggyback on the federal tax scheme.

Your comment on corporate income taxes is incorrect. All corporate taxes are imposed on net taxable income. That calculation begins with “gross receipts,” from which allowable deductions are subtracted. If you do not have “gross receipts,” you cannot have a net taxable income or loss. “Gross receipts” include (and thus are limited to) proceeds from the conduct of “trade or business” activities. 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(a)(26) defines “trade or business” as “the performance of the functions of a public office.” If you file a corporate tax return, it is testimony that the entity is engaged in federally privileged activities. There are both federal and state taxes imposed on those activities. If you have accumulated profits from those activities, the states often impose a net worth tax on those accumulated profits.

I am not a theorist. I am actually doing the things I just discussed and I have had no problems whatsoever from the IRS or any state or federal agencies.(I did have to write a letter to the Secretary of State when one of his subordinates demonstrated ignorance of the law, but he corrected the problem.) All of our workers receive 100% of their pay. All the fruits of their labors are the gift of God (Ecclesiastes 3:13) and I would never be so foolish as to think I could get away with stealing God’s gift from them and giving it to another.

The problem with American businesses is that the people in charge of them are either vested in maintaining the deception (as is the case with many Fortune 500 officers and directors), or they are ignorant and fearful. Fear increases where there is no faith in The Living God. And this is only reasonable, for without the protection of God you are a prey for the god of this world. But perfect love drives out all fear, and ignorance can be cured simply by asking your Heavenly Father in faith to lead you to the knowledge you need to become a better steward. “A wise man will hear and will increase learning.” If any man lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives freely to all men and upbraids not, but let him ask in faith, not doubting, for the man who doubts will not receive anything from God.

Joe, thank you for the information you have supplied. I would like to respond, please.

I am aware of the statutes and regs you have provided. Even though GovCo may not ‘legally force’ employers to compel their workers to become statutory “employees” (and in turn become legal “employers”), the ‘suggestion’ to them to submit to this protocol is the equivalent of the mob ‘suggesting’ to the local store owner to ‘buy in’. I’d like to hear more from you regarding your personal situation where this was avoided (see related comments in next paragraph) .

My company would not hire me w/o the W-4 and I presume that even if they later stopped paying me “wages”, it does not appear by your reference to Form 941 that this option is relegated to a single “employee”. I looked at the Form and it appears it’s an ‘all or nothing’ proposition. You mention ‘checking a box on the back side of Form 941′ that states a company no longer has “employees,”’. I do not see this box, however I see that in ‘Part 3’ there is an option to check “If your business has closed or you stopped paying wages”. This would appear to be for the entire company, as it mentions submitting a ‘final return’ in the instructions (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i941.pdf). However, your point is taken that on Page 1 (‘Part 1’) there is a section to state the “Number of employees who received wages,…” so this is a bit of a conflict with ‘Part 3′.
Question…the company you helped: did they stop paying “wages’ to ALL workers in the company? This would help clarify my ‘all or nothing’ assumption.

Regarding your statement, “Your comment on corporate income taxes is incorrect.” You are correct that the tax is based on net “income”, however the underlying ‘tax’ is based on privilege i.e. activities as such, however that is defined. You confirmed this as such in the last few sentences of that paragraph. Not nitpicking, just wanted to clarify my perhaps incomplete original statement.

I am in total agreement with you that companies ‘fall in line’ with whatever GovCo ‘suggests’ they do, even when they do not have a legal duty as such. Ignorance, fear, etc. This is basically coercion by GovCo. In some cases, it is basically collusion when the companies are aware of these facts. And the workers suffer for this; par for the course.